The need to provide devices to absorb energy associated with shock and impact forces has long been recognized within various industries. For example, automobiles are routinely provided with hydraulic or pneumatic suspension and/or bumper shock absorbing devices.
Other industries, however, have been resistant to using shock and impact absorbing devices, or there are no such devices that can accommodate the needs of such industries. For example, heretofore, it was nearly impossible to provide a shock absorbing device large enough to prevent an inadvertent collision between a commercial ferry or ocean liner and a dock.
Vehicles, vessels, buildings and machinery are frequently subjected to both large and small shock and impact forces. Such forces may come by way of: vehicle braking, a collision with another object; a natural disaster such as an earthquake, hurricane or tornado; and/or repetitive stressing of its structure through vibration that may cause structural fatigue. Such forces not only cause significant amounts of property damage, but can also cause physical injury and even fatality of the occupants of the object and other nearby persons.
The shock absorbers that are currently used primarily include complex hydraulic or pneumatic devices. The cost to manufacture such complex hydraulic cylinders and systems is exorbitant. Each hydraulic cylinder has a plurality of finely machined parts that must be manufactured, assembled, and maintained. Due to the many complex, metal, machined parts therein, such hydraulic cylinders are relatively heavy. Furthermore, due to misalignment, improper installation, inadequate maintenance, corrosion and unexpected angles of applied shock forces, such hydraulic cylinders do not necessarily function as initially intended. Hydraulic and pneumatic devices are also easily susceptible to adverse conditions, rupture and leakage.
In essence, the functionality and effectiveness of such hydraulic and pneumatic cylinder impact shock absorbers are at best in serious question, and at worst can be completely defective.
Furthermore, such complex hydraulic and pneumatic systems are incapable of providing and/or controlling different energy absorption rates throughout a stroke of an impact event.
The following patents illustrate several different devices that other inventors have contrived in an effort to prevent injury and damage associated with shock and impact forces: Peterson (U.S. Pat. No. 2,997,325; issued Aug. 22, 1961); Peterson (U.S. Pat. No. 3,380,557; issued Apr. 30, 1968); De Venne (U.S. Pat. No. 3,583,530; issued Jun. 8, 1971); Hall (U.S. Pat. No. 3,747,915; issued Jul. 24, 1973); Robinson (U.S. Pat. No. 3,833,093; issued Sep. 3, 1974); Casciola (U.S. Pat. No. 3,847,252; issued Nov. 12, 1974); and Gorges et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 3,968,862; issued Jul. 13, 1976).
The inventor believes that the above-listed information, apparatus and devices, whether taken alone or in combination, neither anticipate nor render obvious the present invention. The foregoing explanation does not constitute an admission that such information, apparatus or devices are relevant or material to the present claims. Rather, such information, apparatus and devices relate only to the general field of the current disclosure.